G.R. No. L-35645
May 22, 1985
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CAPT. JAMES E. GALLOWAY, WILLIAM I. COLLINS and ROBERT GOHIER, petitioners, vs. HON. V. M. RUIZ, Presiding Judge of Branch XV, Court of First Instance of Rizal and ELIGIO DE GUZMAN & CO., INC., respondents. Ponente: ABAD SANTOS, J. Facts
Sometime in May 1972, the United States organized an auction by invitation for the repair of its equipment and facilities in at the US Naval Station Subic Bay in Zambales, which was one of those provided in the Military Bases Agreement between the Philippines and the US. Eligio de Guzman & Co., Inc. responded to the invitation and submitted bids. Subsequent thereto, the company received from the United States two telegrams requesting it to confirm its price proposals and for the name of its bonding company; the company, thereby, complied. In June, 1972, the company received a letter which was signed by Wilham I. Collins, Director for Contracts Division of the Navy Department of US, saying that the company did not qualify to receive an award for the projects because of its previous unsatisfactory performance on a repair contract and that the projects had been awarded to third parties. The company sued the US and its officers in the US Navy who were responsible for rejecting their services to order the defendants in allowing the company to perform the work for the projects, and in the event that specific performance was no longer possible, to order the defendants to pay the damages. The company also asked for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the defendants from entering into contracts with third parties for work on the projects. The defendants entered their special appearance for the purpose only of questioning the jurisdiction of this court over the t he complaint being acts and omissions of the individual defendants as agents of defendant United States of America, a foreign sovereign which has not given her consent to this suit or any other suit for the causes of action asserted in the complaint. Subsequently a motion to dismiss the complaint was filed by the defendants, who included an opposition to the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction. The trial court denied the motion and issued the writ. The defendants moved twice to reconsider but to no avail. Hence the instant petition which seeks to restrain perpetually the proceedings in Civil Case No. 779-M for lack of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court.
Issue
W/N US is suable? NO. The traditional rule of State immunity exempts a State from being sued in the courts of o another State without its consent or waiver. It is however contended that when a sovereign state enters into a contract with a private person, the state can be sued upon the theory that it has descended to the level of an individual from which it can be implied that it has given its consent to be sued under the contract. Stated differently, a State may be said to have descended to the level of an individual and can thus be deemed to have tacitly given its consent to be sued only when it enters into business contracts. It does not apply where the contract relates to the exercise of its sovereign functions. In this case the projects are an integral part of the naval base which is devoted to the defense of both the United States and the Philippines, indisputably a function of the government of the highest order; they are not utilized for nor dedicated to commercial or business purposes. W/N the trial court has jurisdiction over the case? NO. The correct test for the application of State immunity is not the conclusion of a contract by o a State but the legal nature of the act is shown in Syquia vs. Lopez. In that case the plaintiffs leased three apartment buildings to the United States of America for the use of its military officials. The plaintiffs sued to recover possession of the premises on the
o
ground that the term of the leases had expired. They also asked for increased rentals until the apartments shall have been vacated. The Court decided that the “US Government has not, given its consent to the filing of this suit which is essentially against her, though not in name. Moreover, this is not only a case of a citizen filing a suit against his own Government without the latter's consent but it is of a citizen filing an action against a foreign government without said government's consent, which renders more obvious the lack of jurisdiction of the courts of his country. ” In Syquia, the United States concluded contracts with private individuals but the contracts notwithstanding the US was not deemed to have given or waived its consent to be sued for the reason that the contracts were for jure imperii and not for jure gestionis.
Held The petition is granted; the questioned orders of the respondent judge are set aside and Civil Case No. is dismissed, costs against the private respondent.
Notes
Makasiar, J., dissenting: The petition should be dismissed and the proceedings in Civil Case No. 779-M in the o defunct CFI (now RTC) of Rizal be allowed to continue therein. He cited cases wherein the US Government is held suable for entering into contracts, o which by its very act implies its consent to be sued. He expressed that constant resort by a foreign state or its agents to the doctrine of State o immunity in this jurisdiction impinges unduly upon the sovereignty and dignity of the nation. Its application will particularly discourage Filipino or domestic contractors from transacting business and entering into contracts with United States authorities or facilities in the Philippines because of the non-enforceability of validly executed contracts and lack of judicial remedy for breaches of contractual obligation. It is to be reasonably assumed and expected that the undertakings in the contract will be complied with in good faith, whether the parties are nations or private individuals. Reliance by petitioners on the non-suability of the United States Government before the o local courts, actually clashes with No. III on respect for Philippine law of the Memorandum of Agreement signed on January 7, 1979, also amending RP-US Military Bases Agreement, which stresses that "it is the duty of members of the United States Forces, the civilian component and their dependents, to respect the laws of the Republic of the Philippines and to abstain from any activity inconsistent with the spirit of the Military Bases Agreement and, in particular, from any political activity in the Philippines. The United States shag take all measures within its authority to insure that they adhere to them.
